7 Arizona opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2011 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arizona courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Marriage of Little v. Littlegreen2 sentences2009Little, 193 Ariz. at 522, ¶ 12 , 975 P.2d at 112 . 3 Accord McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 33, ¶ 20 , 49 P.3d 300, 305 (App.2002) (stating the Little balancing test should apply when obligor accepts lower paying employment). ¶ 13 In adopting the intermediate test, the Little court expressly rejected both the good faith test, which Husband argues should be applied, and a strict rule test. 2009Little, 193 Ariz. at 522, ¶ 12 , 975 P.2d at 112 . 3 Accord McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 33, ¶ 20 , 49 P.3d 300, 305 (App.2002) (stating the Little balancing test should apply when obligor accepts lower paying employment). ¶ 13 In adopting the intermediate test, the Little court expressly rejected both the good faith test, which Husband argues should be applied, and a strict rule test. | 1 | 1 |
Marriage of McNutt v. McNuttgreen2 sentences2009Little, 193 Ariz. at 522, ¶ 12 , 975 P.2d at 112 . 3 Accord McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 33, ¶ 20 , 49 P.3d 300, 305 (App.2002) (stating the Little balancing test should apply when obligor accepts lower paying employment). ¶ 13 In adopting the intermediate test, the Little court expressly rejected both the good faith test, which Husband argues should be applied, and a strict rule test. 2009Little, 193 Ariz. at 522, ¶ 12 , 975 P.2d at 112 . 3 Accord McNutt v. McNutt, 203 Ariz. 28, 33, ¶ 20 , 49 P.3d 300, 305 (App.2002) (stating the Little balancing test should apply when obligor accepts lower paying employment). ¶ 13 In adopting the intermediate test, the Little court expressly rejected both the good faith test, which Husband argues should be applied, and a strict rule test. | 1 | 1 |
State v. Thomasgreen2 sentences1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in 1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in | 1 | 1 |
State v. Sorrellgreen2 sentences1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in 1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in | 1 | 1 |
State v. McVaygreen2 sentences1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in 1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arizona. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Kenyon v. Hammer
green
2 sentences2011Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 78 , 688 P.2d at 970 ; Church, 173 Ariz. at 349 , 842 P.2d at 1362 . 4 . 2011Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 78 , 688 P.2d at 970 ; Church, 173 Ariz. at 349 , 842 P.2d at 1362 . 4 . | 3 | 1988–2011 |
Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co.
green
2 sentences2011Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 78 , 688 P.2d at 970 ; Church, 173 Ariz. at 349 , 842 P.2d at 1362 . 4 . 2011Kenyon, 142 Ariz. at 78 , 688 P.2d at 970 ; Church, 173 Ariz. at 349 , 842 P.2d at 1362 . 4 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
JEB v. Alabama Ex Rel. TB
green
1 sentence2001Id. at 136-143, 114 S.Ct. 1419 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Hearn v. Rhay
green
1 sentence1999Co.; Schlumberger Ltd. v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.3d 386, 171 Cal.Rptr. 413 (1981). ¶ 11 The most widely accepted approach, and the one plaintiffs urge us to adopt, is essentially an intermediate test, first articulated in Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D.Wash.1975). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Schlumberger Limited v. Superior Court
green
2 sentences1999Co.; Schlumberger Ltd. v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.3d 386, 171 Cal.Rptr. 413 (1981). ¶ 11 The most widely accepted approach, and the one plaintiffs urge us to adopt, is essentially an intermediate test, first articulated in Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D.Wash.1975). 1999Co.; Schlumberger Ltd. v. Superior Court, 115 Cal.App.3d 386, 171 Cal.Rptr. 413 (1981). ¶ 11 The most widely accepted approach, and the one plaintiffs urge us to adopt, is essentially an intermediate test, first articulated in Hearn v. Rhay, 68 F.R.D. 574 (E.D.Wash.1975). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Matter of Neville
green
2 sentences1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in 1988Thomas, 130 Ariz. at 436 , 636 P.2d at 1218 (citations omitted); and see State v. McVay, 127 Ariz. 450, 453 , 622 P.2d 9, 12 (1981) (harmless error test — can we say beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not affect jury verdict — is not restricted to constitutional error); State v. Sorrell, 132 Ariz. 328, 330 , 645 P.2d 1242, 1244 (1982) (harmless error doctrine applies to fundamental error). 8 CONCLUSION We hold, therefore, that the trial court erred in its definition of defendant’s burden of proof, and that the error was fundamental and not cured or rendered “harmless.” The correct in | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.